Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 14, 2022

Urena v. City of New York

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:22-cv-04758
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
22
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Urena v. City of New York, Judge Rochon reassigned the case and ordered a status letter, without deciding the lawsuit’s merits.

Who this affects

Amaury Urena, the City of New York, the other defendants, and the parties’ counsel are affected by the reassignment, scheduling changes, and required joint status letter.

What happened

Urena v. City of New York is a civil case brought by Amaury Urena against the City of New York and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims or defenses in detail.

The case was reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. Existing orders, deadlines, and dates remained in effect unless changed, but district-court appearances and conferences were postponed until further notice; proceedings before a magistrate judge were to continue as scheduled.

Judge Rochon ordered the parties to confer and directed the defendants to file and serve a joint status letter within three weeks. The letter must address the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length. The order did not decide the merits.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Urena v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-04758
Judge
Rochon
Date
Sept. 14, 2022

Nature of the Order

This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order, not a decision on the claims. The opinion identifies Amaury Urena as the plaintiff and the City of New York and other parties as defendants. It does not explain the underlying claims, the defenses, or the facts giving rise to the lawsuit.

Reassignment and Scheduling

The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. Unless the court later orders otherwise, all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect. Conferences or oral arguments before, or directed by, a magistrate judge were to proceed as previously ordered. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district court were adjourned pending further notice.

Required Joint Status Letter

The parties were ordered to confer and prepare a joint letter. The defendants were ordered to file the letter electronically and serve it on the plaintiff, who is identified as proceeding without a lawyer, within three weeks after the order was filed. The letter may not exceed four pages.

The order requires the letter to provide, where relevant:

- current contact information for counsel and the plaintiff; - a brief description of the case and principal defenses; - an explanation of why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper; - all existing deadlines and scheduled dates; - any previously scheduled but not yet held court conferences; - descriptions of outstanding motions; - information about pending appeals; - details about discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - a brief description of prior settlement discussions without exact offers or demands; - the parties’ views on mediation, a settlement conference, or a private mediator; - an estimate of the trial’s length; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not need to submit the letter or appear, so long as proof of termination was filed before the deadline.

Other Instructions

The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and Judge Rochon’s individual rules to the plaintiff. The attached rules explain filing, service, discovery, motions, conferences, trial preparation, sealing, settlement, and electronic-device procedures for civil cases, including cases involving a party without a lawyer.

Disposition and Classification

The court did not grant or deny a merits motion, dismiss any claim, enter judgment, or otherwise resolve the lawsuit. It issued case-management directions after reassignment. This is classified as a procedural order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.